Promisance License

Riverpaw · December 22, 2003, 05:14:44 PM

I know the rules, but it still confuses me. Oh, and BTW, you are a different person, right? (referring to Weasel)

Burninate · December 22, 2003, 05:15:20 PM

The most recent post was made by Burninate, which is a shared account, not one person made it.

Riverpaw · December 22, 2003, 05:18:21 PM

... and Weasel is a seperate person? Wait, he's Devari and also Hiirtia, right? Or is he another shared account?

Burninate · December 22, 2003, 05:53:31 PM

QuoteCombining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them

QuoteI'd like to modify GPL-covered programs and link them with the portability libraries from Money Guzzler Inc. I cannot distribute the source code for these libraries, so any user who wanted to change these versions would have to obtained those libraries separately. Why doesn't the GPL permit this?
There are two reasons for this.
First, a general one. If we permitted company A to make a proprietary file, and company B to distribute GPL-covered software linked with that file, the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through. This would be carte blanche for withholding the source code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to GPL-covered software.

Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main goals, so this consequence is definitely something we want to avoid.

More concretely, the versions of the programs linked with the Money Guzzler libraries would not really be free software as we understand the term--they would not come with full source code that enables users to change and recompile the program.

QuoteCan I write free software that uses non-free libraries?
If you do this, your program won't be fully usable in a free environment. If your program depends on a non-free library to do a certain job, it cannot do that job in the Free World. If it depends on a non-free library to run at all, it cannot be part of a free operating system such as GNU; it is entirely off limits to the Free World.
So please consider: can you find a way to get the job done without using this library? Can you write a free replacement for that library?

If the program is already written using the non-free library, perhaps it is too late to change the decision. You may as well release the program as it stands, rather than not release it. But please mention in the README that the need for the non-free library is a drawback, and suggest the task of changing the program so that it does the same job without the non-free library. Please suggest that anyone who thinks of doing substantial further work on the program first free it from dependence on the non-free library.

Quotezlopid: and the libraries are not non-free, they're non-distributable.

Quote`Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

QuoteThe freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Garagas Ledavas · December 22, 2003, 06:09:28 PM

Quote from: Riverpaw... and Weasel is a seperate person? Wait, he's Devari and also Hiirtia, right? Or is he another shared account?

Hirtiia/Devari is Weasels of Pestilence.

Burninate · December 22, 2003, 07:55:57 PM

Please respond Retto... I mean... seriously I post all that stuff and then you don't comment.

This happened once before
When I came to your door
No reply
They said it wasn't you
But I saw you peep through your window

The Weasel Liberation Mov · December 22, 2003, 11:15:47 PM

I am one person. :D

I just have many names... :)

calria · December 23, 2003, 12:37:43 PM

I don't think Retto is going to respond, dahlinks...
Not anytime soon, anyway. He's too smart for that.

Burninate · December 23, 2003, 12:39:42 PM

I hope he does respond. Otherwise he can just talk to QMT Promisance.
Purgett sure won't be happy, right? Threatening to report should force Retto's hand to respond, I think.

The Weasel Liberation Mov · December 23, 2003, 01:44:21 PM

Code libraries...

Does this mean that I'm banging my head against the desk trying to hand code all of my php for nothing?! Please tell me what exactly these code libraries are?

caedo caelestis · December 23, 2003, 04:01:43 PM

And to sum this all up? In modern english...

Immortal · December 23, 2003, 04:38:02 PM

I think this discussion also came up awhile ago at TSOR. Forgot how it turned out though. Anyways, i think that the code should be realeased too. :rolleyes:

Burninate · December 23, 2003, 04:43:01 PM

Quick background history of promisance:

1. PC made promisance (and all early versions were released as GNU GPL)
2. EzClanProm Final edition released: June 25, 2001 (No license, but since it was based off of PC's version it's GNU GPL)
3. PC changes the License Agreement for all versions after Feb 1. 2002 to be his "NEW LICENSE" agreement
4. QMT uses EzClan code to make QMT (at this point I'm not sure if it was just QM, due to the credits in RWL:BAX) and is released under GNU GPL.

Quote from: caedo caelestisAnd to sum this all up? In modern english...

RWL History:

1. Boze downloaded the source of promisance (QMT) and within a bit created RWL and provided source as the GPL stated.
2. Retto, Stormclaw, and Boze created RWL:DEX and provided the source as the GPL stated.
3. RWL:BAX was created and Retto did not put up the source, breaking the GPL as Beatles and a few others said.
4. Retto first debated that he was not "distributing" his program, IE: a loophole through semantics.
5. Burninate pointed out that it says you have to give out source if you modify the source and let the public use it.
5. Retto then said that he included licensed libraries from VI, (which he wrote and is closed source), and could therefore not disclose the source as this was breaking the terms he agreed to (with himself).
6. Another member of Burninate pointed out that the GPL that Retto agreed to, says that you may not add Non-free software to Free software or "combine them." So if Retto could not or would not show the source of these programs (IE: making them Free) then he could not have RWL: BAX available to the public.
7. Retto said that the software was not "non-free" it was "non-distributable"
8. The Burninate pointed out that that is the same thing, because the freedom is freedom of speech not "free beer"
9. Retto avoided the Burninates points and said that the burninate should shut up.
10. The Burninate said that Retto should respond or they would bring this to QMT, which Retto/Boze downloaded source from.

Current History.

mice of might · December 23, 2003, 04:52:19 PM

11. Most of the forum members who have read this agree with Burninate.
12. mice of might does a dance

Retto · December 23, 2003, 05:08:20 PM

I haven't replied because I don't have time to go through and refute every one of his extraneous points, but...

It makes provisions for licensed libraries. Is he saying that the license contradicts its self, that it says it allows licensed libraries but in fact, does not? I doubt it.